Psychology Today: What If Consciousness Comes First?

What If Consciousness Comes First?

Sharon Hewitt Rawlette Ph.D.

The issue is that physical properties are by their nature relational, dispositional properties. That is, they describe the way that something is related to other things and/or has the disposition to affect or be affected by those other things. Most notably, physical properties describe the way that something affects an outside observer of that thing. But there is something going on in conscious experience that goes beyond how that conscious experience affects people looking at it from the outside. For this reason, the “what it’s like” to be a conscious mind can’t be described in the purely relational, dispositional terms accessible to science. There’s just no way to get there from here.

There is, however, one elegant solution to the riddle of how to explain the relationship between consciousness and physical properties. Many illustrious philosophers throughout history have held to this view, and if it is rarely considered today, this is likely because it requires such a radical shift in perspective. Nevertheless, if we are ever going to understand consciousness and its relationship to the physical world, I believe this is a shift we are going to have to make.

The key to resolving the hard problem of consciousness lies in the following observation. While physical properties cannot explain consciousness, consciousness is needed to explain physical properties.

As previously noted, physical properties are purely relational/dispositional. They don’t tell us what physical things are in themselves, only how they are related to other things (and how they are disposed to be related to them in the future). However, if all we ever have is relational/dispositional properties—that is, if everything is only defined in terms of other things—then, ultimately, we have defined nothing at all.

What If Consciousness Comes First?

Sharon Hewitt Rawlette Ph.D.

It appears that the times they may actually be changing, with regard to the reductive materialism versus immaterialism/spiritual reality culture war. An article advocating the immaterial nature of consciousness as the fundamental ground of reality in some form of idealism is actually published in the website of the leading scientific psychology magazine Psychology Today? This article would have been heresy and not fit to print a couple of decades ago. The essay in affect dismisses the fundamental belief of current materialist neuroscience, the dogmatic view that consciousness is, must be, one and the same as or an epiphenomenon of brain neurons and synapses processing data, and as such is an illusion.

[Ninshub]

The name sounded familiar - she was a forum member on Skeptiko five years ago. Glad she's joining the ranks of published authors about psi.

The name sounded familiar - she was a forum member on Skeptiko five years ago. Glad she's joining the ranks of published authors about psi.

I sent her the Rene Volken German NDE, Ian and it was perfect for her (apparently) If anyone has any paranormal coincidental experiences, she
would be very grateful. She's nice, I like her more than Malf. (bait)

It appears that the times they may actually be changing, with regard to the reductive materialism versus immaterialism/spiritual reality culture war. An article advocating the immaterial nature of consciousness as the fundamental ground of reality in some form of idealism is actually published in the website of the leading scientific psychology magazine Psychology Today? This article would have been heresy and not fit to print a couple of decades ago. The essay in affect dismisses the fundamental belief of current materialist neuroscience, the dogmatic view that consciousness is, must be, one and the same as or an epiphenomenon of brain neurons and synapses processing data, and as such is an illusion.

You might be interested in Transcendent Mind, the book published in 2016 by the American Psychological Association.

That's a particularly beautiful NDE, very interesting too...

Thanks, Max, I agree. I don't see how materialism can begin to explain that. So I guess the sceptics on here will just ignore it, no doubt.

It appears that the times they may actually be changing, with regard to the reductive materialism versus immaterialism/spiritual reality culture war. An article advocating the immaterial nature of consciousness as the fundamental ground of reality in some form of idealism is actually published in the website of the leading scientific psychology magazine Psychology Today? This article would have been heresy and not fit to print a couple of decades ago. The essay in affect dismisses the fundamental belief of current materialist neuroscience, the dogmatic view that consciousness is, must be, one and the same as or an epiphenomenon of brain neurons and synapses processing data, and as such is an illusion.

Psychology Today does have a large number of bloggers (something like 20 blog posts appear every day) and there are certainly others who are psi-friendly and whose contributions have been quoted here, for example:
Steve Taylor:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...e-darkness
Maureen Seaberg:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sensorium
Marc Wittmann:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sense-time

It appears that the times they may actually be changing, with regard to the reductive materialism versus immaterialism/spiritual reality culture war. An article advocating the immaterial nature of consciousness as the fundamental ground of reality in some form of idealism is actually published in the website of the leading scientific psychology magazine Psychology Today? This article would have been heresy and not fit to print a couple of decades ago. The essay in affect dismisses the fundamental belief of current materialist neuroscience, the dogmatic view that consciousness is, must be, one and the same as or an epiphenomenon of brain neurons and synapses processing data, and as such is an illusion.

I do see the progress in the acceptance of mind and its actual influence in the worldview of science.  Science is evolving forward with new tools for probing how living things process information.  Consciousness is experiential and hence "dark" to meaningful direct measurement.  However, coming forward is a theory of mind where any bio-communication process, whether being consciously aware or not, can be related to the sum total of the information flow of an organism. 

While measuring informational transformations is new science, relatively speaking, it is in no way as well understood as forces and materials.  But, there is evidence of progress, especially in the study of bio-evolution.  There, in recent years, the myth of a random magic making heredity work, is all but intellectually dead.   At the level of subconscious activity, mind is seen as a driving force for adaptation, as envisioned by Lamarck and Darwin.

I see the battle differently, a lineup exists where there is no problem with physicalistic reduction to a level of activity that is not closed, but is complimentary with informational reduction to a separate level.  Both, of these levels have science armed with qualitative criteria to tackle the observations and turn them into workable data.

So Materialism get assigned to a methodological role, a role equal to that of parsing information.  Integrated studies become emphasized.  This not dualism - as there is a obvious 3rd category of subjective phenomena and there may be more.   My point is -- that careful research of how information is transferred will shed light on the reality psi communication and maybe how it happens.

The war becomes:

Materialism metaphysics - vs - received science that includes the study of immaterial reality as communication, logic, natural order, dispositional relations, meaningful behavior and deep understanding.

This doesn't touch the need for spiritual sciences and research in ethics.  The 3rd level.